Part M Building Regulation

Gumbo wrote: »

You cannot get a Compliance cert as you have breached the Building Regulations.

Depending on when and how the toilet was removed, they may not have breached building regs. I don’t believe there’s an obligation to maintain compliance in your home. In particularly for part M.

Moot point, as the house is being sold, it is non-compliant at this moment in time.

Id say it will go ahead.
You will get a cert of compliance noting the part M issue and likely nobody will make an issue of it.

Mellor wrote: »

Some of those are for benefit, health and safety for occupants. All occupants. Can’t think if an argument to justify removing them.

Part M is based accessibility for a potential occupant/visitor. It’s quite easy to think of situations where it’s of no benefit.
Public buildings obviously have a requirement to provide facilities to the public. I’m not sure if private dwellings do. If they did, then it could apply to all dwellings. But the way the law is structured, only applies to construction. I can’t think of a legal basis where somebody would be bound by building regs for minor works or DIY type stuff.

Just to be clear, I’m talking in terms of whether OP has broken the law. Or breaks the law by selling it. Not suggesting everyone should rip them out.

I dont see how you differentiate between this reg and other aspects of the regs.
It should be there if required at time of construction.
I still think the sale will progress though.

I would think the sale will almost certainly fall through - the bank will not realease funds if the house isn't compliant, and your house isn't compliant.
As I see it, you have two choices - take a chance on the bank ignoring the non-compliance (extremely unlikely in my opinion), or, if it's just a case that the WC was removed and the pipes capped, get the buyer to hold off a few days and reinstate it.

mickdw wrote: »

Some of the certs ive seen accepted would put the hair standing on your head.
Depending on how its written, it would very likely go through.
Some people tend to do a very simple note such as 'non compliance relating to Part M noted'

Personally, i make it very clear stating something like - The following items where non compliance was noted:
Part M - accessible toilet not present on ground floor. Floor layout altered with original toilet removed.

Ive done certs where there was a full page of non compliance across planning and building regs including qualifications due to it being a visual inspection and a bank still funded it.

Jesus, I've never come across that since the celtic tiger years I have to say - I have seen banks turn down funding for silly things, though nothing would surprise me any more!

sydthebeat wrote: »

on this particular regulation, the actual law states:

Adequate provision shall be made for people to access and use a building, its facilities and its environs.

Now we’re getting somewhere.

Adequate provision for the users.

So if a set of facilities other than those in TGD was deemed adequate, for the users. Then it would satisfy part M. Correct?

if an accessible toilet is removed, or its "accessibility" removed, then the building is de facto non compliant in my opinion, and I believe actionable by the BCO

People have mention in thread a few times when they have written or sighted reports that included part M exclusions.
Has anyone heard of an occupier being prosecuted or fined for deviating from TGD part M?

to "use" a building is an ongoing process... not just "on completion"

Yes. I’d agree with that.
However TGD are written for generic use.
We are now looking at specific use. Which is different.

Hypothetically, say a little person bought a house, and modified sanitary fixtures, handles, switches etc to suit their stature. Would you deem that non-compliant with part M? I wouldn’t. As it’s a specific accessible design.

Removal of a Part M toilet means that other people than the owner are prospectively the "injured party", and thus are protected under the legislation.

obviously all this is my opinion

Which people, other that the occupant, are an injured party?
Bare in mind it’s a private dwelling, so people other than the occupant, don’t have any right or reason to be on the property.
Now that it’s being sold, it’s a different story obviously. On the open market it’s non-compliant.

And I fully respect you opinion Syd. I understand exactly where you are coming from. I’d never advice somebody in a professional capacity to deviate from TGDs without a very solid reasoning.
I’m speaking purely from a technical legal standpoint. I think it would very hard to prosecute the OP. Or more to the point, easy to defend that position with an “expert witness”.

For the record I’m still very much involved in accessible design, it’s something I take very seriously. I think part m is lacking in a few areas, but in general it’s pretty good.